[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Pueblo (was: A good set of generic questions)

- Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 20:37:00 PDT
- From:
- Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960521024200.006a7b98@seqaxp.caltech.edu> from "Eric Mercer" at May 20, 96 07:42:00 pm

    Eric Mercer declared :
    #
    #>  If you want to do something like this, why not use Pueblo?  The new
    #>[snip]
    #[snip]
    #
    #  Although I like some things about the Pueblo implementation (by the
    #company "Chaco"), and their "scrolling HTML" is kind of interesting, it has
    #three problems that I see. One, the client requires you to connect through
    #the Chaco server,

    This could be a problem for folks that are too far (in the 'net sense
    of "far") from Chaco. It could be fixed by setting up alternate servers,
    I guess.

    # which I view as a sneaky way for Chaco to set itself up as
    #the gateway to MOOs that don't belong to it, and also as a serious security
    #risk unless you don't mind the folks at Chaco having access to all your MOO
    #communications (do all client communications go through their server

    If this is true, it means that the guys at Chaco hold the keys to every
    MOO that goes through them. Bad.

    #first?).  Two, Unix and Mac users are left out in the cold because there is
    #no Pueblo client version for them.

    This is reason enough not to use Chaco, at least for me. I don't want to
    do marketing for Windows :-)

    #  Three, you become dependent on the folks at Chaco to continue supporting
    #and upgrading their client.

    and this is THE reason. You are putting your eggs in a basket that you have
    no control over. And it seems to be a small basket, for the matter.

    #[snip]
    #  Web-MOO implementations that are browser independent, or at least
    #support both Netscape Navigator and MS Internet Explorer (90% of the people
    #out there use one or the other), are preferable because you then have
    #several multi-million dollar companies developing your MOO's client for you.

    Not to mention an international standards body ...

    #P.S. Yes, I'm dissing the competition. But I trust y'all are smart enough to
    #judge things based on their features in any case.  I look forward to hearing
    #a slick rebuttal soon.  :)

    I am afraid (much as I hate them) that webbing MOOs will require the use of
    frames. I know, I know, nobody likes them.

    Omaggi, Walter (wizard at LittleItaly)

References:

- Re: A good set of generic questions...

- From: Eric Mercer <mercer@seqaxp.bio.caltech.edu>

- Prev: Re: Problem...
- Next: pulling mussels from a shell
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index